But also remember, that we want the Redbook to be easy to find. If a developer were to use a search engine for content, I doubt they would search for "Decoupling IBM i Applications". Much more likely they would search "Modernizing IBM i Applications" or even "Modern IBM i Applications", both of which would potentially find a hit for the Redbook.

First off, before I start, please don't assume I am against the books contents. I made a constructive comment about a phrase that permeates it not a criticism.

Books are sold by their cover art and titles. Not every title captures everyone's imagination.

I disagree with your assessment that a slightly negative implication is desirable. "Everything works right now. Why bother migrating?" - This has held true for change of any kind for as long as I can remember.

Actually the concepts discussed in this book have been around a while: Not all of it is "modern" but I agree there will be those who have never been exposed to the topics. SQL, for example, has been around for more than ten years. Simply going to an SQL database model isn't necessarily "modernizing". It can be more coming in line with other languages that can't do database without it. I'm not saying this is wrong. It's just "Modern" in geological time but in the technology world? Not necessarily ( I'm thinking non-SQL databases ).

How about some of these words rather than Modernize. So you have

Remodel IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Renovate IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Refurbish IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Renew IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Refresh IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Revive IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Enliven IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Decouple IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Uncoupling IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or
Update IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Or simply

IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Rather than

Modernize IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between

Personally, I prefer "Decouple IBM i Applications from the Database up to the User Interface and Everything In Between". It makes me think of how the OS is decoupled from the hardware. It also makes me think I can find concepts that I can put to use on other platforms as well. Maybe I can port the database to another platform if I do this.

Of course some think the entire platform needs to be "modernized" - A battle being waged at every turn it seems. By "modernized" they actually mean replaced with another platform.

One suggestion though. How about replacing Modernization with
Disengaging from TN5250 or Decoupling from TN5250 or maybe Migrating
your IBM i to Multiple Clients or some other phrase? I've noticed
over the years the term modernization tends to isolate the subject.
It implies old and no one likes being called old.

Jon Paris answered:

Simple answer Gary. A lot of the book has nothing to do with 5250. It
concerns topics like database modernization, interfacing via XML, etc.
etc.

I don't disagree that there can be a slight negative to the
"Modernization" handle - but can't think of a better one.

Besides agreeing with Jon Paris, I would also note that the suggested alternatives are too unwieldy, in my opinion. I mean, even if we were talking about a book which ONLY covers user interface, "Disengaging from TN5250" and "Decoupling from TN5250" sound too... um... uncatchy, and perhaps aimed at electricians or something.

"Migrating your IBM i to Multiple Clients" is definitely better (again, for a more limited book), but I still personally like having modernization in the title. The reason is that the slight negative implication is actually desirable. It provides a sense of impetus for the reader. If your title is completely neutral and flat, it sounds academic and a little pointless. (Everything works right now. Why bother migrating?)

To put it another way: When you see the word "modernization" do you see criticism or opportunity? If you're so focused on the criticism side of the coin that the title of the book turns you off, I'm not sure whether anything is going to help you. (Generic "you" of course; I'm not talking about Gary or anyone in particular.)

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2015 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact